Monday, 27 February 2017

It's all well and good thinking that well crafted intellectual rational discussions are somehow better than emotional outbursts full of profanities. There is value in the observation that they are superior in some significant way. For example, if I am trying to explain how the adder in the arithmetic logic unit of the CPU in your computer works, I have more chance of successfully imparting that knowledge with rational and carefully crafted words than to say something less intellectual like "it works with electric fucking switches you ignorant cunt."

And yet ... I have been intrigued for most of my adult life by the successful nature, in some circumstances, of more robust and emotionally expressive language rather than intellectually crafted communications. Even at primary school I recognised the constricting nature of the detailed minutia of the rationalised rules and regulations. It was clear to the heart and soul that the oppressive moralising by authoritarians was inherently wrong in spite of their words seeming to make some consistent sense. My sympathy was often with the renegade, the truculent, or even the rude or offensive child.

It seems our culture has gone a long way with the neat and tidy carefully controlled intellectual construction of rationality. For all the benefits many philosophers have also noticed the dangers of this clinically linear approach to communication. Over time it can become quite perverse and dislocated from reality. It seems to me that our culture in general, and our political culture in particular, have deviated dangerously from a correct, accurate, or useful construct for operating successfully as a society in the world.

A currently fashionable example springs to mind - the idea of truth. Given the history of academic indulgence in the pursuit of truth the culture expects truth to be a kind of thing, an item, a discernible quality, and something that can be determined. To suggest that the truth is variable seems contradictory and quite wrong. The reason for this is our misconception of the meaning of truth. We nail it down in our minds and then go looking for evidence. It is true that light is a particle and it is true that light is a wave. It is also true that a thing cannot be both. But the truth in those statements depends upon the domain, relevance, and purpose of the pronouncement.

The state of affairs in which we exist is precisely that state of affairs. The fact that we can never know it does not mean it does not exist and more importantly it does not mean that our perspective on it is incorrect. If you walk around an elephant you will get lots of different views and the more views you get the more accurate will be your comprehension of the elephant. But no matter how many perspectives you have, the model in your head will never be the elephant. The only thing that is the elephant is the fucking elephant in the room.

We have travelled so far up our intellectual alimentary canal that we no longer recognise the real world but reside, instead, inside the waste pipe of our own construction. Brexit is a massive convoluted entangled mess of rationalised intellectual garbage. It is not a real thing in the real world. And yet, because of the power of the idea in people's heads this carbuncular manifestation constructed in the minds of the living dead will have very real destructive impact on the otherwise real and valuable people across Europe. Trump is also not a real thing. He is the epitome of fake news, post truth, and alternative facts.

Perhaps I could have been more succinct and accurate had I said: "They are so far up their own fucking arses they're talking shit."

Saturday, 18 February 2017

This whole Brexit fabrication is as much a puppet show pantomime as ISIS ever was. And the crowd seem to be loving it. Tony Blair has appeared on stage and the people are shouting "booo" and "behind you" all over again.

The vast majority of statements I encounter on this issue are essentially missing the point. There is the view that the vote is cast and nothing can change it. Some people think we should have another vote; some think we should make deals which keep us in Europe in every respect except in name. And the variations proliferate. One fundamental issue behind this fiasco is the struggle between the conflicting paradigms of free will and determinism. The idea that the past is fixed but we can change the future. The past, as it happens, may exist but our conception of it, the meaning and significance we give it, are in our minds and therefore not fixed in the way we imagine. The future is only unknown to us, again, because of our minds.

The sun will rise tomorrow; that is as fixed as that it rose yesterday. It is inconceivable that the sun won't rise tomorrow. One can make up all sorts of scenarios to colour and distract from the central tenet but the Earth is not going to suddenly simply stop spinning and the sun is not going to suddenly simply go out like a candle. Any speculation of extreme circumstances which could counter the claim that the sun will rise have equally extreme counterparts dismissing the "knowledge" that the past has occurred as we imagine it. Maybe the sun didn't rise yesterday because this experience we are having is all a simulation and the sun, as we imagine it, doesn't even exist anyway. That is philosophically as plausible as the idea the sun won't rise tomorrow. So we do largely know the past and it is largely fixed in the sense that we mean it. The same holds true of the future.

But we are subjectively involved in this whole system which includes us. We do have a functional capacity to perceive, interpret, and comprehend. We ultimately act according to the constructed concepts that are formed in our minds. We are part of the evolving state of affairs and in that respect we interpret this as free will. As with many things this topic is multi faceted and is difficult to delineate in a continuous stream of words on a page. It is as if we are all in a bus and we voted to turn right and now see a ravine in front of us. People are screaming that we should turn left but the information we have suggests there is a bottomless pit the other side. People are suggesting we carry on the way we were going but we all knew that wasn't working. We're all shouting at the driver and there are some even trying to grab the wheel.

It is as if we are caught in a double bind. Trapped in the conceptual model we have built for ourselves. Within that model an example exists to give us a clue but it is not the solution. The example being that no one is noticing that anyone could simply stand on the brake. All that illustrates is that there is always an unexpected option. But within a double bind we cannot see any workable solution because it is the very nature of a double bind. The experienced "bind" is the paradoxical nature of our dilemma. The constraining bind is the paradigm through which we interpret the events. For example, we are not on a bus and there are not ravines and pits all around us. We are, for example, watching a film which is very convincing, or even in a simulator. We only have to step outside and none of the feared disasters even exist.

This is, of course, fundamentally and spiritually true. Whether we like it or not our future is determined but possibly not in the manner we conceive determinism. Every single one of us will be dead in 100 years. That is pretty well determined. So the real issue is what are we doing in this moment as a node of consciousness. Why are we focusing on the manifest illusion we like to imagine is "the real world" and attempting to alter the image as if it will alter reality? What we have to do is act according to the desires and edicts of our inner souls. We have to be compassionate, respectful of our experience, and act in ways that are just and fair. We have to say "no" to the boss that demands we mistreat other humans or that we desecrate this world. We have to oppose authority when it is wrong. You can take this as far as you please but withholding tax because it is used to pay arms manufacturers to build weapons to subjugate and destroy other people instead of funding the doctors and nurses to look after the sick and the elderly would be one very difficult thing you could do. Just because you are too afraid to do that should not be reason to justify it and to enable you to continue with the misguided assessment that you are right.

The whole construct of Brexit is a misrepresentation of the current dynamics of the human population. That actors like Jeremy Corbyn, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, or Tony Blair get on the stage and act out roles is distracting us from the fact that we are in the theatre. We are profoundly entrapped in our suspension of disbelief in an all consuming way. So we shout "booo" and "behind you" with yet more enthusiasm and vigour.

This dramatic device was played out very well with the whole War on Terror nonsense culminating in the ravages of ISIS. We are now simply indulging in a repertory theatre version in Europe whilst the US has its Trumpton variation. So what is behind all this staged play acting? We are destroying the environment by filling it with plastic and killing the wildlife, destroying the ecosystem by ripping up forests and raping the sea beds, and we pollute the atmosphere with toxins and poison the oceans with radiation. All this is going on outside the theatre and the production managers are working for the owners who bought the theatre to distract us whilst they pillage our town.

There is no valid argument for or against Brexit. There is only distraction from what the oligarchs are doing to destroy this sacred and potential paradise.